🌐suivre Marie-Anne Frison-Roche sur LinkedIn

🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le droit processuel, modèle de l'Obligation de Compliance", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L'obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, à paraître

____

📝lire l'article

____

🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes

____

📕lire une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, L'obligation de Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié

____

► Résumé de l'article : Des réflexions commencent à être disponibles pour décrire les relations à construire entre le Droit processuel et l’Obligation de Compliance, ne serait-ce que pour rendre compte du contentieux émergent en matière de compliance, le Droit de la Compliance se juridictionnalisation. Mais cela ne nous apprend rien de spécifique car tout ce qui est happé par un procès est de ce fait mêlé de droit processuel.

Il apparaît même qu’à première vue le Droit de la Compliance n’engendre aucune obligation processuelle, puisqu’il est conçu pour se développer en Ex Ante, évitant à l'entreprise le juge, la compliance by design devant perfectionner cet allégement, la présence de tout procès n’étant qu’un échec, en soi et par les délais et les incertitudes qui y soient par nature associés. C'est même souvent dans l'espoir d'être à l'abri de tout procès que les entreprises affirment pouvoir "se conformer" à toutes les réglementations, à tout instant, en tous lieux, à travers toutes les personnes dont elles répondent. Cela est évidemment impossible. Si cela était, les entreprises seraient alors condamnées par avance à l'occasion de tous les procès possibles, leurs sanctions étant demandées par chacun, procureur public ou procureur privé. Mais c'est confondre Droit de la Compliance et la "conformité", laquelle n'est qu'un outil de cette nouvelle branche du Droit. 

Il ne suffit pas de dire qu'il convient alors de respecter les droits de la défense et l'accès au juge, ce dont nul ne prétend, ou devrait prétendre, se défaire.

L'objet de cette étude est plus de mesurer en quoi le contentieux lorsqu'il porte sur le Droit de la Compliance, c'est-à-dire la charge pour les grandes entreprises de participer à la concrétisation de buts monumentaux en alliance avec les autorités étatiques, ce dont l'obligation de vigilance est la pointe avancée, est transformé de ce fait, créant des obligations processuelles non seulement nouvelles mais d'un nouveau type à la charge des uns comme des autres.

En effet, pour l'instant l'on admet comme à regret la logique processuelle, la présence des juges, et non pas seulement des organes de poursuite (procureurs et collèges des Autorités de régulation et de supervision), et des avocats en défense et non pas seulement en négociation, pour respecter l'Etat de Droit, sorte de tribut que l’on verse, dose d’inefficacité dans l’efficacité, dressant alors les disciplines les unes contre les autres, ici le Droit d’un côté, l’Economie et la Gestion de l’autre. Le plus souvent, on en reste là, soit pour l’admettre et faire un équilibre, soit pour le regretter et attendre de savoir quelle logique l’emportera, entre les droits et obligations processuels d’une part et les droits et obligations de compliance d’autre part.

Il convient au contraire de récuser cette logique de vases communicants.

En effet, le Droit de la Compliance est le prolongement du Droit de la Régulation, qu’il déploie au-delà des secteurs et des frontières, dont la normativité est ancrée dans les Buts Monumentaux fixés par les Autorités politiques et publiques qui visent à ce qu’à l’avenir les systèmes ne s’effondrent pas, voire s’améliorent pour que les êtres humains qui en dépendent n’en soient pas broyés mais au contraire en bénéficient.

Il en résulte un « contentieux systémique de la compliance » dont il résulte des principes processuels spécifiques. Il convient tout d’abord de préciser ce qu’est une « cause systémique », notion que j’ai proposée en 2021, et à laquelle correspondent les cas qui sont aujourd’hui portés devant les tribunaux. La spécificité de ces contentieux systémiques émergents de compliance, qui sont des contentieux objectifs, proches de ce que connaît le contentieux administratif, ce qui justifie notamment pleinement la présence du ministère public et pose la question de savoir s’il existerai un « juge naturel » de ce contentieux systémique de la compliance, ont des conséquences processuelles majeures, notamment sur les droits et obligations processuels : notamment le droit d’être partie à l’instant, même si l’on est partie au litige, ce qui est le cas des parties prenantes.

Il en résulte une nouvelle alliance entre l’Obligation de Compliance et le Droit processuel, qui engendre des obligations de compliance de nature processuelle au sein même du Droit de la Compliance. Il convient en effet de ne plus scinder l’Ex Ante et l’Ex Post, mais d’emprunter des principes de compliance pour les insérer dans les procédures juridictionnelles, comme le conçoit le Haut Conseiller François Ancel (passage de l’Ex Ante vers l’Ex Post), tandis qu’il convient d’insérer des principes processuels dans les obligations de compliance au sein des entreprises (passage de l’Ex Post vers l’Ex Ante), comme l’a montré l’ouvrage sur La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance. Cela est particulièrement illustré  à propos de l’Obligation de Vigilance, pointe avancé de l’Obligation de Compliance.

Cela est particulièrement pertinent à propos de trois Obligations processuelles qui désormais doivent structurer les obligations de compliance dans les comportements des entreprises et des parties concernées indépendamment même de tout procès, le juge éventuellement saisi devant vérifier leur accomplissement de part et d'autre et les favoriser, ce qui engendre pour lui un office Ex Ante : l’obligation de discuter (principe du contradictoire), l’obligation d’information (système probatoire) et l’obligation de démontrer (principe de la motivation).

Dans cette évolution non seulement l'obligation processuelle de donner accès, d'organiser des voies de recours, d'écouter l'autre, obligation processuelle qui peut être réciproque surtout lorsqu'il s'agit d'écouter l'autre et de prendre en considération ce qu'il dit, trace devant en être trouvé dans la motivation (par exemple du plan de vigilance), l'obligation processuelle trouve alors sa nature profonde : le prototype de l'obligation de compliance.

Cette alliance change à la fois le Droit de la Compliance et le Droit processuel, puisque cela change plus largement l’office du juge, qui doit veiller à l'effectivité de ces obligations processuelles dans un continuum entre l'Ex Post et l'Ex Ante. Mais cette question de l’office du juge est l’objet d’une contribution autonome.

________

.🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, General Procedural Law, prototype of Compliance Obligation, Working Paper, 2023-2024.

____

🎤 This working paper was drawn up as a basis for the presentation "Droit de la Compliance et Droit processuel" ("Compliance Law and General Procedural Law") at the colloquium on 13 June 2023, , and then completed for publication.

____

📝It is therefore also the basis for the written contribution, "The General Procedural Obligation, prototype of the Compliance Obligation", in the book to be published Compliance Obligation

____

► Working Paper summary: Thoughts are beginning to be available to describe the relationships to be built between General Procedural Law and Compliance Obligation, if only to explain the Emerging Systemic Litigation in compliance matters, Compliance Law becoming jurisdictionalised. But this does not tell us anything specific, because everything that is caught up in a lawsuit is therefore mixed up with General Procedural Law.

It would even appear that, at first sight, Compliance Law does not give rise to any procedural obligations, since it is designed to be developed on an Ex-Ante basis, avoiding the judge for the enterprise, compliance by design being intended to perfect this alleviation, the presence of judicial proceedings being a failure in itself and because of the delays and uncertainties which are inherently associated with them. It is often in the hope of being protected from legal action that enterprises claim to be able to 'be conform' with all regulations, at all times, in all places, through all the people for whom they are responsible. This is obviously impossible. If it were, enterprises would be condemned in advance in all possible legal proceedings, their sanctions being demanded by everyone, public prosecutor or private prosecutor. But this is to make a grave confusion between Compliance Law with 'conformity', which is merely a tool of this new branch of the Law. 

Nor is it enough to say that the rights of the defence and access to the courts must be respected, which no one denies or should not deny.

The purpose of this study is more to measure how Litigation relating to Compliance Law, i.e. the Obligation on large enterprises to participate in the achievement of Monumental Goals in alliance with the state authorities, of which the duty of vigilance is the most advanced, is transformed, creating not only new procedural obligations but also a new type of Obligation on the part of both parties.

But for the moment we reluctantly accept the procedural logic, notably the presence of judges and not just prosecuting bodies (public prosecutors and colleges of regulatory and supervisory authorities), and lawyers in defence and not just in negotiation, in order to respect the Rule of Law principle, as a sort of tribute paid, a dose of inefficiency in efficacy system. This sets the disciplines against each other, in this case Law on the one hand, Economics and Management on the other. More often than not, we leave it at that, either to admit it and strike a balance, or to regret it and wait to see which logic will prevail, between procedural rights and obligations on the one hand and compliance rights and obligations on the other.

On the contrary, we must reject this logic of communicating vessels.

Indeed, Compliance Law is an extension of Regulation Law; Regulatory Law, which extends beyond sectors and borders, and whose normativity is anchored in the Monumental Goals set by political and public authorities, which aim to ensure that in the future systems do not collapse, or even improve, so that the human beings who depend on them are not crushed by them but, on the contrary, benefit from them.

The result is "Systemic Compliance Litigation", which gives rise to specific procedural principles. First of all, it is important to clarify what a "Systemic Case" is, a concept proposed in 2021, and to which the cases that are now being brought before the courts correspond. The specific nature of these Emerging Systemic Compliance Litigation, disputes which are objective disputes, similar to administrative cases, which fully justifies the presence of the public prosecutor and raises the question of whether there would be a 'natural judge' for these systemic compliance disputes, have major procedural consequences, in particular on procedural rights and obligations: in particular the right to be a party to the proceedings, even if you are a party to the dispute, which is the case for the stakeholders.

The result is a new alliance between Compliance Obligation and General Procedural Law, which gives rise to a Compliance Obligations of a procedural nature within Compliance Law itself. It is no longer necessary to divide Ex-Ante and Ex-Post, but to borrow compliance principles and insert them into jurisdictional procedures, as envisaged by Justice François Ancel (moving from Ex Ante to Ex Post), while it is necessary to insert procedural principles into Compliance Obligations within enterprises (moving from Ex-Post to Ex-Ante), as shown in the book on Compliance Jurisdictionalisation. This is particularly illustrated in relation to the Duty of Vigilance / corporate sustainability due diligence.

This is particularly relevant in relation to three general procedural obligations which must henceforth structure the compliance obligations in the behaviour of the enterprises and parties concerned, even independently of any legal proceedings requirements, since the judge may be called upon to verify their fulfillment on both sides and to encourage them, which gives rise to an Ex-Ante office of the judge: the obligation to discuss (adversarial principle), the obligation to provide information (evidentiary system) and the obligation to demonstrate (principle of the motivation).

In this development, not only is the procedural obligation to provide access, to organise remedies, to listen to the other party - a procedural obligation which can be reciprocal, especially when it involves listening to the other party and taking into account what they say, a trace of which must be found in the reasons given (for example for the vigilance programs) - the procedural obligation then finds its profound nature: to be the prototype of the Obligation of Compliance.

This alliance changes both Compliance Law and General Procedural Law, since it more broadly changes the office of the judge, who must ensure the effectiveness of these procedural obligations in a continuum between Ex-Post and Ex-Ante. But this question of the office of the judge is the subject of a separate contribution in this book.

____

🔓read the developments below⤵️

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Synthèse" ("Synthesis"), in Concurrence : les enjeux de la Compliance​, May 24, 2024, Paris, Collège européen de Paris, Paris Panthéon-Assas University, 28 rue Saint-Guillaume

____

🧮see the full programme of this event (in French): 

🌐read the  la newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation on 26 Mai 2024 about this colloquium and this synthesis (in English)

____

► Summary of this concluding conference:The conference was based on the 'framework document' on conformity programmes published by the French Competition Authority, the Autorité de la concurrence, on 24 May 2022 and focused on one of the tools used, namely risk mapping. The care taken to bring together academics whose job it is to give an account of reality by classifying and naming it, which makes it easier to handle, and people who every day in enterprises find solutions to anticipate difficulties so that they can be resolved, or even prevented from arising, has borne fruit.

____

From all the presentations and discussions, 4 perspectives emerge, each showing what has been achieved, what may still emerge in interaction with all the other mechanisms in Compliance Law that incorporate risk mapping (for instance ,the French 2016 so-called "Sapin 2" law, the French 2017 so-called "Vigilance" law, the CS3D European directive, etc.) and the other mechanisms that are correlated with risk mapping (audit, internal investigations, evidence likely to be raised before a judge by the enterprise and/or by a stakeholder and what remains uncertain in this 2022 framework document.

_____

The first perspective is the basis of these recommendations, encouragement, methods, advice, etc.

The second perspective is the means developed to establish and implement these compliance programmes.

The third perspective is the scope of this framework document, which also depends to a large extent on the scope of the compliance programmes adopted by the firms themselves.

The fourth perspective is that of the subjects of law who are obliged, or who benefit from the adoption of such  compliance programmes in Competition Law.

____

During this conclusion, based solely on what each speaker had to say, I continued my reflections in each of these 4 directions.

This reminded me of some of my work made in English on this subject: 

• M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, ,2022

• M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧 Support from Compliance Law for day-to-day management of Competition Law, 2021

• M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧 Competition Law and Compliance Law, 2018

_________

► Référence complète : CEDH, Grande chambre, 9 avril 2024, n°53600/20, Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz et a. c/ Suisse

____

🏛️lire l'arrêt

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "L’émergence du Contentieux Systémique" ("Emergence of the Systemic Litigation"), in Importance et spécificité du Contentieux Systémique Émergent (Importance and specificity of the Emerging Systemic Litigation), in cycle of conferences-debates "Contentieux Systémique Émergent" ("Emerging Systemic Litigation"), organised on the initiative of the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Cour of Appeal), with the Cour de cassation (French Court of cassation), the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Versailles Court of Appeal), the École nationale de la magistrature - ENM (French National School for the Judiciary) and the École de formation des barreaux du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Paris - EFB (Paris Bar School), under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, March 29, 2024, 11h-12h30, Cour d'appel de Paris, salle Masse

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🧮see the programme of the entire cycle Contentieux Systémique Émergent

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn the report of this speech (in French)

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event, which links to a presentation and a report of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific coordination sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support this intervention (in French)

____

🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this speech

____

► English Summary of the conference: We are seeing the emergence of what should be referred to as a category of its own: the "Systemic Litigation". This concept, proposed in 2021📎!footnote-3521, refers to the hypothesis in which a system is 'involved' in a particular 'case' submitted to the judge. The presence of a system should not be confused with a systemic analysis of a phenomenon. The term 'cause' must be understood in the procedural sense, as used in article 5 of the Code civil (French Civil Code). Specifically, the prohibition contained in article 5 of the French Civil Code does not apply because a system thus involved calls for factual responses and solutions and not necessarily general and abstract solutions: the solution of a systemic nature and scope, that the presence of a system in a cause calls for, may be a factual solution, even if it radiates out from the system as a whole. But precisely because the presence of a system in the case often gives rise to a question that is itself systemic, the judge, if he wishes to comply with article 4 of the French Civil Code, must respond not only a minima by not evading the question, for example of systemic risks, but also fully by providing systemic solutions, for example remedies to preserve in the future the solidity and durability of the systems involved in the case. 

These systems may be of different kinds: banking, financial, transport, health, energy, digital, algorithmic or climatic. Their presence in cases brought to the attention of judges, the variety and difficulties of which will be seen in later contributions, leads to basic questions relating to the emergence of Systemic Litigation: firstly, how can Systemic Litigation be defined? Secondly, what makes this category of litigation emerge? The answers to these two questions have essential practical consequences. 

The new solutions must be based on a classic distinction, used in particular in criminal and administrative proceedings, which are more objective, but also in civil proceedings, notably by Hébraud, namely the distinction between the "party to the dispute/litigation" and the "party to the proceedings". Depending on whether it is accepted that the system should be considered as a "party to the litigation", which would allow it, through an entity that is legitimate in expressing it, to allege claims and formulate demands against an adversary, or as a "party to the proceedings", a much broader category, which would allow the judge to hear the interests of the systems involved without individuals being able, on behalf of a system, to formulate claims against or for the benefit of a party to the litigation.

This makes it possible to innovate while preserving the measure of which the judge is the guardian.

________

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international" ("Reinforcing Compliance commitments by referring Ex Ante to International Arbitration"), in L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche, J.-B. Racine and E. Silva-Romero (dir.), L'arbitrage international en renfort de l'obligation de Compliance (International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental (CESE), Paris, February 9, 2024

____

🧮see the full programme of this event

____

🌐consult on LinkedIn a general presentation of this event, which links to a presentation of each speech (in French)

____

🧱consult the scientific direction sheet of this event, which gives an account of the various speeches made

____

🔲see the slides used to support the presentation (in French)

____

📝This conference and the Working Paper on which it is based are to be linked with the article to be published in the book📘Compliance Obligation 

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est l'Obligation de Compliance" ("Prerequisite: what is the Compliance Obligation"), given at the same symposium

____

🎤see a presentation of the conference "Préalable : ce qu'est un engagement" ("Prerequisite: the Commitment"), given at the same symposium

____

► Presentation of the conference: It was initially planned that I would speak on the subject Le renforcement des engagements de Compliance par le renvoi Ex Ante à l'arbitrage international (Reinforcing Compliance commitments through the Ex Ante referral to International Arbitration), but it was agreed with the other organisers of the symposium that after defining the concept of the Compliance Obligation📎!footnote-3390 I would refocus my second speech, mentioned above, on what a Commitment is📎!footnote-3391, an essential prerequisite for dealing with the subject of International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation. Developments on Reinforcing Compliance commitments through the Ex Ante referral to International Arbitration will appear in the forthcoming books: L'obligation de Compliance (in French), Compliance Obligation (in English). Nevertheless, if I had dealt with this subject, I would have raised the following points:

• The inclusion of an offer of arbitration in the field of Compliance implies considering it in a contract as well as in a non-contractual commitment, and studying which category of Compliance Obligation the offer may apply to.
• This insertion benefits from taking the form of a "graduated offer", in a crescendo organised by the company ex ante and offered to the stakeholders: conciliation, mediation and arbitration, in "circles of trust"📎!footnote-3387. This is supported by the current French amicable settlement policy.
• The result was that I had to prepare a long "preliminary" discussion of what a "commitment" is, without which it seemed difficult to talk in concrete terms about the effective insertion of an offer of arbitration if we did not know whether such links or words had a constraining effect on the person issuing them in relation to the person benefiting from them. After discussions with the other speakers, it became clear that it would be more effective to give a talk devoted solely to the question of the legal definition of commitment. We therefore decided to allocate this second speaking slot to the notion of commitment. Since the written words do not have the same constraints, it will take up the initial construction, insisting on the different supports, either compliance contracts, or associations with compliance clauses, relating to different Compliance obligations, in particular on information or audit or Vigilance📎!footnote-3388, because the company must have the legal power corresponding to the mission that the State entrusts to it through Compliance📎!footnote-3389.
• The offer must be carefully drafted to explain its purpose, and its organisation must prove the reality of this purpose: to give access to a judge to people affected by the company's activity, and not to block it.
• This will therefore be available in detail in the forthcoming books:
  • M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L'obligation de Compliance
  • M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Obligation

________

► Référence complète : High Court of Justice (Haute Cour de Londres), 24 juillet 2023, aff. n° BL-2023-000215, [2023] EWHC 1897 (Ch), ClientHearth c/ Shell PLC

____

🏛️lire le jugement

____

🏛️lire le jugement du 25 mai 2023 rendu dans la même affaire et que la présente décision confirme

________

► Référence complète : High Court of Justice (Haute Cour de Londres), 25 mai 2023, aff. n° BL-2023-000215, [2023] EWHC 1137 (Ch), ClientHearth c/ Shell PLC

____

🏛️lire le jugement

____

🏛️lire le jugement du 24 juillet 2023 rendu dans la même affaire

________

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Pour un consommateur "vigilant" : l'éduquer. Analyse juridique" ("For a "vigilant" consumer: educate him. Legal analysis"), Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 18 April 2023.

____

📧Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

____

🔴For an efficient Compliance Law: an Ex Ante responsibility in alliance with consumer expectations 

A survey confirms that consumers integrate the monumental goals that generate compliance duties and obligations on the companies that sell them products. But this does not create a duty on them to prefer these products over others: they do not feel "responsible" for them. Compliance Law is based on ex ante responsibility and shared duty. So, faced with this attitude, what can the Law do?

____

📧read the article ⤵️ 

🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full reference: M.A. Frison-Roche, Vigilance, a piece of the European puzzle, Working Paper, March 2023.

____

🎤This Working Paper has been done as was made the  conclusion of the colloquiul La société vigilante ("Vigilant Company") at the Aix-Marseille University on March 24, 2023 (conference given in French) 

____

📝It is also the basis of the article that introduces a special issue on La société vigilante

____

► Summary of this Working Paper: The contributions form a contrasted whole. It should not be concluded that some of them are correct and others false: through the reading that each one makes of the so-called French 2017 "Vigilance law," it is a vision of the world as it should be that each author proposes. Because Compliance Law, which Vigilance is a part, claims to draw the future, it is normal that each author should draw the present Law with a hand that bends in one direction or the other, following their conception of the future world. The whole contributions must be seen as a dialogue.

A lively dialogue, with this French 2017 law receiving a lot of "glory" and a lot of "indignity" on both sides, from which it is necessary to emerge in order to find solutions, because it is a fundamental movement of which this law is only a gateway (I).  Whatever one thinks of it, it is all the branches of law that are used, affected, and transformed by Vigilance (II). To master this profound transformation, we must turn to Europe, to the great puzzle of texts recently adopted or in the process of being adopted in the European Union, of which Vigilance is the hallmark (III).

____

🔓read the Working Paper⤵️

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Laws, Compliance, Contracts, and Judges: places and alliances, Working Paper, March 2023.

____.

📝this working paper is the basis for an article published in French (click HERE) in the 📚chronique of Compliance Law held in the Recueil Dalloz.

____

📚Read the other articles published by this Compliance Law Chronicle. open since 2018.

____

►Summary of this Working Paper: To understand the functioning of compliance systems in the articulation of the legal actors and the legal instruments used, whatever the technical sector considered, it is necessary to put the "law", the "contract" and the "judge" back into the perspective of legitimacy and efficiency regarding what Compliance is. 

At the very least, it is a 'conformity' mechanism. In this process of simple obedience, legislators, economic operators, and judges find themselves in the position of having to obey the law in a hierarchical conception.

In a more dynamic and ambitious conception, when Compliance Law is not reduced to a more astute method of obedience but draws substantial normativity from the Monumental Goals pursued, legislators and operators enter an alliance. The contract becomes a major instrument, and the Judge becomes a major actor, no longer to punish the non-obedient but to facilitate the links to help a sustainable system. 

Faced with issues such as digital, climatic, and technological challenges, where we are each so weak and isolated, we must not limit our conception and practices to the instrument of conformity but choose the substantial Compliance Law, i.e. the alliance of forces, which puts forward the contract and renews the office of the judge, with the Public Authorities remaining legitimate in setting the Monumental Goals since they commit the future of the social group.

________

🔓read bellow the developments⤵️

► Référence complète : G. J. Martin, "L'environnement", in J.-B. Racine (dir.), Le droit économique au XXIe siècle. Notions et enjeux, LGDJ, coll. "Droit & Économie", 2020, pp. 319-348

____

📕consulter une présentation générale de l'ouvrage, Le droit économique au XXIe siècle. Notions et enjeux, dans lequel cet article est publié 

____

► Résumé de l'article : 

____

🦉Cet article est accessible en texte intégral pour les personnes inscrites aux enseignements de la Professeure Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

________